Dismissed¶49

Palaniammal (Died) Parvathi (Died) 1. Pavayee v. P. Chenniappan

Madras HC13 Feb 2026CRP/4592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP dismissed; Article 227 Constitution of India; amendment of plaint allowed upheld; clarificatory amendment; typographical error rank of defendants 24 and 26 instead of 24 and 25; Paragraph No. 14 rank 25 and 26 instead of 26 alone; sub-division survey numbers; partition suit O.S. No.464 of 2018; I.A. No. 11 of 2025; II Additional District Munsif Court Erode; additional written statement all defences; no prejudice; no costs; S. Sounthar J.; 13-02-2026; High Court of Judicature at Madras; earlier suit decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court identity of suit property left open.

What did the court decide?

None to the revision petitioner; the trial court's order allowing the amendment stands undisturbed; the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.23276 of 2025) is closed; no costs. ¶49

Palaniammal (Died) Parvathi (Died) 1. Pavayee Vs P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revision petitioner; the trial court's order allowing the amendment stands undisturbed; the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.23276 of 2025) is closed; no costs.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petition, filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the trial court's allowance of the first respondent/plaintiff's amendment application, should be interfered with or dismissed. +2 more

¶44

Court's answer

Finding no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The amendments sought are only clarificatory in nature and allowing of the same will not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

¶45

Key takeaways

Once the amendment application is allowed as a matter of right, the petitioner is entitled to file an additional written statement, in which all defences can be raised and shall be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal.ratio¶45
Whether the suit property in the present suit and the suit property in the earlier matter are one and the same is a matter to be decided based on the pleadings of the parties in both the suits at the time of final disposal; the point is expressly left open and does not bar the amendment at this stage.obiter¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.; 13-02-2026) dismisses CRP No. 4592 of 2025 (connected CMP.No.23276 of 2025 closed; no costs), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Pavayee and others against P. Chenniappan and others, challenging the Fair and Decretal Order dated 27.06.2025 of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, allowing I.A. No. 11 of 2025 (amendment of plaint) in O.S. No.464 of 2018, a partition suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. The Court held the amendments - correcting typographical errors in the ranks of the defendants in the body of the plaint (typed as 24 and 26 instead of 24 and 25) and in plaint Paragraph No. 14 (typed as 25 and 26 instead of 26 alone), and adding sub-division survey numbers - are only clarificatory and cause no prejudice; the revision petitioner may file an additional written statement raising all defences, to be considered at final disposal. Whether the suit property in the present suit is the same as in an earlier suit stated by counsel to have been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was expressly left open, to be decided from the pleadings in both suits at the time of final disposal.

¶1

CRP No. 4592 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 4592 of 2025 and

¶7

CMP.No.23276 of 2025

¶8

Palaniammal (Died)

¶9

Parvathi (Died)

¶10

Pavayee

¶11

Kuppusamy (Died)

¶12

2.Duraisamy 3.S.M. Murugesh

¶13

4.S. Valarmathi

¶14

5.Mahendran

¶15

6.Jeyamani

¶16

7.Chinnammal

¶17

8.M. Poovarajan

¶18

9.Velliangiri

¶19

10.Saraswathi

¶20

11.Palaniammal

¶21

12.Jothinathan

¶22

13.Sathiyamoorthi

¶23

14.Mohanasundaram

¶24

15.Subburathinam

¶25

16.Nithyadevi

¶26

__________ Page1 of 5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

CRP No. 4592 of 2025

¶29

17.Jayanthi 18.Murali 19.Gandhi 20.Malliga 21.M. Balasubramaniam 22.Chinnammal 23.Ganesan 24.Muthayammal 25.Jaganathan 26.S. Pappathi

¶30

..Petitioner(s)

¶31

¶32

1.P. Chenniappan 2.Arunan @ P. Srinivasan 3.Karuppannasamy 4.M. Padmanaban @ Sampath

¶33

..Respondent(s)

¶34

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 27.06.2025 made in I.A. No. 11 of 2025 in O.S. No.464 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

¶35

For Petitioner(s): M/s. C. Munusamy For Respondent(s): Served-No appearance

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial

¶38

Court allowing the petition for amendment filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

¶39

The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit for partition. Pending suit, the

¶40

instant application has been filed seeking amendment of the plaint. It is the case

¶41

Page2 of 5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP No. 4592 of 2025

¶44

of the 1^st respondent that in the body of the plaint while referring to rank of the defendants, the rank has been wrongly typed as 24 and 26 instead of 24 and 25. It is further stated that in Paragraph No. 14, the rank of the defendant was wrongly typed as 25 and 26 instead of 26 alone. Further, the 1^st respondent also wanted to include the sub-division survey numbers. The said amendment application was allowed by the Trial court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order would submit that 1^st respondent earlier filed a suit in respect of the very same suit property and the matter was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the trial Court ought not have allowed the amendment application. Whether the suit property in the present suit and the suit property in the earlier matter are one and the same is a matter to be decided based on the pleadings of the parties in both the suits at the time of final disposal. Now, the 1^st respondent wants to correct certain typographical error with regard to the rank of the defendants in the body of the plaint and also to include subdivision survey numbers for the suit properties. The amendment are only clarificatory in nature and allowing of the same will not cause prejudice to the petitioner. In any event, once the amendment application is allowed as a matter of right, the petitioner is entitled to file additional written statement. In the said additional written statement, the petitioner can raise all the defences and the same shall be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal. Finding no prejudice

¶46

Page3 of 5

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

CRP No. 4592 of 2025

¶49

is caused to the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶50

13-02-2026

¶51

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr

¶52

¶53

The II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

¶54

__________ Page4 of 5

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56